It is interesting that your solution is the same as that in a book I just finished called Triumph of the Bankers though the author (can't recall his name) seems to come from the opposite political spectrum as most FRs. And is totally against the gold standard.
Perhaps divisibility is not the proper word but trying to pay for small purchases would be very difficult and using gold dust would be totally impractical. In days when gold coins were used Mrs. James Polk mentioned in her letters the difficulty of carrying coins. She wanted paper money just for that reason lol. While ancedotal I believe it not an insignificant aspect of the gold standard.
Money all boils down to trust whatever the standard. It was this feature which Hamilton understood above all and his program essentially capitalized the word of the American people when its gov. stood by the debt issued. Trusting the word of the government induced large investments from Europe and made people from across the world invest here. Jefferson suggested the difficulties be solved by deflauting on the debt as had been done by several southern states with their debt taken on during the Revolutionary War.
Without this trust and that investment the U.S. would have had almost no money supply. Specie was drained to Europe by persistent trade deficits for at least only by continuous investment by England was the balance of payments kept from having disastrous impacts.
You equate gold standard with the use of gold coins in commerce. However, all that a gold standard requires is that paper money, coins, etc. be redeemable in gold at a standard weight per unit of currency by the issuer. I would, personally, add the requirement that the issuer of the paper and coins maintain 100% of the gold needed to redeem all outstanding paper and coins. Either way, however, the system is better than the current fiat system wherein the government grants the Fed and the rest of the banking cartel a monopoly on the right to issue and distribute money while the rest of us are required to honor it through legal (a.k.a. forced) tender laws. This system does not comport with democracy or free enterprise. It imposes an elite structure by force and because the money-creating privilege is always and has always been abused, the government grants still further special privilege to the monetary elite.
Because you are so adverse to gold, I went on to say that fiat systems are also possible that do not establish an elitist structure. I go on to describe one that benefits virtually all but a tiny monetary elite. Your only comment, so far, is that it is interesting that some guy who is on the other side of the political spectrum from most FRs suggested the same concept in a book. I am not surprised. People of all political stripes should, theoretically, favor honest money over the current system. Are you saying that since people you don't like agree with me nothing further has to be said about the merits of my suggested reform?